posted on June 29, 2005 03:25:42 AM
THE SPEECH BUSH CAN'T WIN FOR LOOSEN
President Bush addressed the nation on Iraq, saying the war is "worth it." He opposed withdrawing or sending more troops and called for patience with the war.
How would you rate Bush's speech?
Poor 52%
Excellent 27%
Fair 11%
Good 9%
How concerned are you about the situation in Iraq?
Very 74%
Somewhat 18%
Not at all 8%
Total Votes: 218,541
Are you satisfied with the progress in Iraq?
No 77%
Yes 23%
Total Votes: 110,875
Note on Poll Results
Will the U.S. ultimately defeat the insurgents?
No 65%
Yes 35%
Total Votes: 110,495
Is the war in Iraq worth the human cost?
No 74%
Yes 26%
Total Votes: 111,310
posted on June 29, 2005 10:47:43 AM
lol - no suprise there, Ron.
--------------------
for those who so love the polls....
Democrats' own mood poll scares them
By Joseph Chrysdale
Jun. 29, 2005 at 10:48AM
Washington, Jun. 29 (UPI) —
A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity.
Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.
"Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.
Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters' perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."
Fellow strategist James Carville said the war in Iraq and rising fuel prices are affecting party loyalty as well.
"The country is just in a foul mood," Carville said. He noted within the same poll, 56 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
The poll was conducted June 20-26 and queried 1,078 likely voters. The margin of error was pegged at 3 points.
----------
So, while some American's may not like the direction President Bush is handling things....at least they are doing something for others to complain about. Whereas the dems are see and doing nothing...and STILL are faring worse.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 29, 2005 11:00:05 AM
And another poll:
"There is actually good reporting coming from Iraq -- check out Michael Yon's blog, for example. And it's possible to get a clearer picture of the strategic picture than most big media accounts provide. See also this strategic overview from Steven Den Beste, and this one from the military site StrategyPage. Not much of that good reporting gets big play in the American mass media."
"However, despite the deluge of bad news that some regard as biased and politically motivated, the polls are surprisingly supportive of Bush:
"As President Bush prepares to address the nation about Iraq tonight, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that most Americans do not believe the administration's claims that impressive gains are being made against the insurgency, but a clear majority is willing to keep U.S. forces there for an extended time to stabilize the country."
"The survey found that only one in eight Americans currently favors an immediate pullout of U.S. forces, while a solid majority continues to agree with Bush that the United States must remain in Iraq until civil order is restored -- a goal that most of those surveyed acknowledge is, at best, several years away.
"Americans, unlike too many politicians and reporters, are apparently capable of looking past the next election. I can't help but feel, in fact, that much of the "deadline" talk we've been hearing from politicians is all about political, not military, deadlines."
"Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus notes that the Democrats, who have been suffering from deadline fever lately, haven't always been singing that tune. The Belgravia Dispatch, meanwhile, explains why John Kerry's calls for a deadline in Iraq are the sort of dreadful idea we've come to expect from Kerry."
"It's a war. The way to win it is, well, to win it." "Deadlines are for people who care more about other things than they do about winning."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 29, 2005 11:03 AM ]
The speech was viewed by an audience composed disproportionately of Bush supporters, a pattern Gallup has observed in other major Bush speeches. Fifty percent of the viewing audience identified themselves as Republicans, 27% as independents, and 23% as Democrats.
While Bush may largely have been "preaching to the choir," the viewing audience did come out of the speech with a slightly more positive outlook on the war than it had before the speech.
posted on June 29, 2005 12:25:30 PM
I believe he said something to the effect: that the commanders on the ground hadn't said they needed more troops. He would fire them if they called for more troops anyway. They fired one general before the war when he explained that a force of 200k+ was needed.
posted on June 29, 2005 12:32:06 PM
Is it true that they refuse to allow other countries like Germany, France and Canada to train some of the Iraqi security officers outside of the country where it would be safer to do so?
posted on June 29, 2005 12:57:17 PM
This is an interesting read..it reminds me of LindaK...when she constantly tries to define what others say and think..
Batten Down the Hatches
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted June 28, 2005.
The first thing I ever learned about politics was never to let anyone else define what you believe, or what you are for or against. I think for myself.
I am not "you liberals" or "you people on the left who always..." My name is Molly Ivins, and I can speak for myself, thank you. I don't need Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove to tell me what I believe.
Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it down has become a favorite form of "argument" for those on the right. Make some ridiculous claim about what "liberals" think, and then demonstrate how silly it is. Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and many other right-wing ravers never seem to get tired of this old game. If I had a nickel for every idiotic thing I've ever heard those on the right claim "liberals" believe, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.
The latest and most idiotic statement yet comes from Karl Rove, who is not, actually, an objective observer. He is George Bush's hatchet man. Last week, Rove, in an address to the Conservative Party of New York, made the following claim: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
This seemed to the editorial writers at the San Diego Union-Tribune such a reasonable summary of the liberal position they couldn't figure out why Democrats were "hyperventilating" and getting "bent out of shape."
"What is harder to understand is how Democrats can think they can have it both ways," they wrote. "Even as they beat their chests and profess support for military action, they can't help but criticize the military and do everything they can to undermine the war effort." What a deep mystery. Let's see if we can help the San Diego thinkers solve it. On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing the president to take military action. The vote in the Senate was 98 to zero; the vote in the House was 420 to one. The lone dissenter was Democrat Barbara Lee of California, who expressed qualms about an open-ended war without a clear target. Find me the offer for therapy and understanding in that vote. Anyone remember what actually happened after 9-11? Unprecedented unity, support across the board, joint statements by Democratic and Republican political leaders. The whole world was with us. The most important newspaper in France headlined, "We Are All Americans Now," and all our allies sent troops and money to help. That is what George Bush has pissed away with his war in Iraq.
The vote on invading Iraq was 77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 133 in the House. By that time, some liberals did question the wisdom of invasion because: A) Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and B) it looked increasingly unlikely that Iraq actually had great stores of weapons of mass destruction, since the United Nations inspectors, who were on the ground, couldn't find any sign of them -- even though Donald Rumsfeld claimed we knew exactly where they were.
Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I'll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq: because I thought it would be bad for this country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue to oppose it today -- I think it is bad for us. I think it has done nothing but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.
I did not oppose the war because I like Saddam Hussein. I have been active in human rights work for 30 years, and I told you he was a miserable s.o.b. back in the '80s, when our government was sending him arms.
I did not oppose the war because I am soft on terrorists or didn't want to get Osama bin Laden. To the contrary, I thought it would be much more useful to get bin Laden than to invade Iraq -- which, once again, had nothing to do with 9-11. I believe the case now stands proved that this administration used 9-11 as a handy excuse to invade Iraq, which it already wanted to do for other reasons.
It is one thing for a political knife-fighter like Karl Rove to impugn the patriotism of people who disagree with him: We have seen this same crappy tactic before, just as we have seen administration officials use 9-11 for political purposes again and again. But how many times are the media going to let them get away with it?
The first furious assault on the patriotism of Democrats came right after the 9-11 commission learned President Bush had received a clear warning in August 2001 that Osama bin Laden was planning a hijacking.
Batten down the hatches: This is the beginning of an administration push to jack up public support for the war in Iraq by attacking anyone with enough sense to raise questions about how it's going.
Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.
posted on June 29, 2005 01:00:49 PM
Kiara, I don't know the answer to that question, however, that sounds about right.
Ron, you are going to be dissapointed for a long while. It may take a generation or two to convince the Iraq population that a democratic form of government will work. During the first Gulf War Bush Sr. assured the Sunnis that he would support them. He left the high and dry, to suffer the wrath of
Saddam. Isn't it ironic they are fueling the insurgency in Iraq now. This situation could very well lead to a civil war. If this administration truly seeks to liberate these people, we are in for a long haul.
posted on June 29, 2005 04:26:14 PMIf I had a nickel for every idiotic thing I've ever heard those on the right claim "liberals" believe, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.
And if we all had a nickel for every idiotic thing Molly Ivins has ever said, we'd ALL be rich.
Anyone who thinks that because others disagree with the anti-war crowd's accusation that they're not thinking for themselves WOULD appreciate ol' Molly's words. Mainly because she does't know what she's talking about....
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 29, 2005 05:00:41 PM
Brother.....that's the truth.
--------------
She's [helen] had her 'white flag of surrender' up since day one, sadly.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
edited to add helen's name so as not to confuse others that I was referring to ol' molly. But I'd bet she did too...from what I have read of her op-ed pieces.
posted on June 29, 2005 05:12:15 PM
::Ron, you are going to be dissapointed for a long while. It may take a generation or two to convince the Iraq population that a democratic form of government will work.::
The problem is that we are not fighting the Iraqi people. We are fighting foreign fighters that have chosen Iraq as the field of battle. If we leave, their cause is gone. The longer we stay, the more that come to fight us. This "They'll only wait us out" excuse is ridiculous... what are they supposed to be "waiting" for?
Also, no government is going to be able to stand on it's own until it is allowed/forced to do so. We need to start helping them get their government in order and get an internal works structure built and then start getting the hell out of dodge and let the people of Iraq start taking care of their own business. You think they are going to put up with thugs in their neighborhoods when they have finally managed to get rid of both Saddam and us?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 29, 2005 05:55:27 PM Bush stated,"Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others."
Maybe 8 percent of the fighters in Iraq are foreign jihadis. Of the some 25,000 guerrillas, almost all are Iraqi Sunni Arabs who dislike foreign military occupation of their country. You could imagine what people in Alabama or Kentucky would do if foreign troops came in and tried to set up checkpoints in their neighborhoods.
Moreover, many of those jihadis fighting in Iraq wouldn't even be jihadis if they weren't outraged by Bush's invasion and occupation of a Muslim country.
The fact is that the US went in and convinced the Sunni Arabs of Iraq that we were going to screw them over royally, driving them into violent opposition. They aren't inherently terrorists and could have been won over.
There are no Iraqi military units that can and will fight independently against the Sunni guerrillas, so all those statistics he quoted are meaningless.
Almost all the coalition allies of the US have a short timetable for getting out of the quagmire before it goes really bad. Bush's quotation of all that international support sounds more hollow each time he voices it.
An interesting Flash presentation on Coalition casualties can be found here, demnstrating their geographical extent throughout the country.
The political process in Iraq has not helped end the guerrilla war. It has excluded Sunnis or alienated them so that they excluded themselves. It offers no hope in and of itself.
There was nothing new in Bush's speech, and most of what he said was inaccurate.
posted on June 29, 2005 07:07:05 PM
On the topic of "The Speech".
Can anyone tell me why President Bush continues to connect 911 and the war in Iraq as if the war on Iraq was in retaliation for the 911 attacks?
Is this a tactic to keep the uninformed just that? The many who still believe Iraq was responsible for the 911 attacks...??
Don't you find him mentioning 911 six times in a 30 minute speech a tad exploitive? JMHO of course..
posted on June 29, 2005 07:19:54 PM
If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in Iraq during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C., is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington, D.C.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on June 29, 2005 07:42:59 PM
maggie - It's been answered a million times at least.
The past THREE administrations felt saddam presented a threat to the US. After 9-11 it was more worrisome. And since during the clinton administration the law had been passed to remove saddam....this just worked out to be the best time to do so. HE [saddam] wasn't cooperating with the UN Security council resolutions....as he hadn't for close to 13 years. The liberals were screaming to stop the sanctions against him because it was hurting his people.
This is not the only administration that thought saddam had NW...nor the only country. And I have, in the past provided the names of democrats that thought the same thing. President Bush removed that threat.
Over and done with. But the mentioning of 9-11 seens to anger the left. Don't know why....it happened and we may very well have another 9-11 down the road. But the common demoniator is terrorists....threats to the US...threats to the world....just as clinton stated more than once when he was president.
So...no it doesn't bother me one bit. I see all those who present a threat to our Nation as enemies. Those who wish to destroy us are NOT our friends...are NOT going to be 'talked' out of trying to achieve their goal...our destruction.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 29, 2005 08:13:01 PM
I don't know LindaK..perhaps you are correct in your interpretation.. but it somehow reminded me of what I've read about the second world war and how the attack on Pearl Harbor was the match that ignited the American citizens to fight...
so it seems to me that any attack on our nation will work the same way and much of our population think we declared war on Iraq because of the 911 attacks...
I am probably not explaining myself very well..but in other words if we had not been attacked on 911... I don't think our country would have so readily consented to go to war with Iraq...I think it took the 911 attack on us to ready our country men for a battle.and we were easily led while in attack mode to fight where ever our government pointed their finger...
posted on June 29, 2005 08:24:02 PM
I agree, maggie, in that we won't ever know what might have happened had 9-11 not taken place. But it did...and as this President has said...HE was not willing to let the threat Iraq/saddam presented continue to be an issue - to let that long-term threat continue to be and just HOPE he didn't decide to pull anything funny. After all, saddam did have a history of USING these weapons. And saddam was paying the families of terrorists to kill others...and bragging about it. $25,000 a pop.
Just as one reference....our other choice for President in 2004 is quoted as saying:
"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
John Kerry
It wasn't JUST this President that was tired of playing games with saddam for all those years...and who wanted saddam to comply or face the consequences. And when the war was going well....[b]kerry was PRAISING President Bush's actions. It's just that now it's become a political 'bashing' tool for those on the left - rather than staying focused on the still current threat.
And our fighting as a Nation, amongst ourselves isn't going to be detouring our enemies one little bit. If we don't stand united in our fight against them...we're all going down.....it's just a matter of when. We must remain vigilant, imo.
posted on June 29, 2005 08:29:07 PM
To use statistical comparisons of the deaths of the troops to traffic accidents or firearm deaths in the US is a cold and uncaring way to view things. They are not being killed 'by accident' in Iraq. They are involved in a war and it is very anti-American for any of you to speak of their duty there with such disregard and it's an insult to all of them as well as their families and friends because they should be honored for the brave work they are doing.
And it's a bigger insult to make comparisons with a lol or laughing smiley or a wink, showing no compassion whatsoever.
posted on June 29, 2005 09:52:11 PM
Maggie - in case you have not noticed - Linda is so blinded by utter devotion to this adminstration and everything it says that actual facts are irrelevent and the voices of any that disent, including republicans and people with actual knowledge on the subject, are at a frequency which she cannot (or will not) hear.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 29, 2005 09:54:21 PM
::start? lol That's exactly what we have been doing. Do they not mention such things in the liberal news media?::
I don't know about the liberal media but I do know that even on Fox they acknowledge they don't have a constitution, 24 hour a day power or a reliable water infastructure yet Linda. Don't you pay attention to your own approved news sources?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
